Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network

Let us return to the most basic assumption needed for the argument for subsidies to stick, namely that utilities would replace shut down nuclear plants with fossil fueled plants. This is possible but by no means necessary, especially with continued falling costs for renewable energy and storage technologies. The energy industry is changing so rapidly that what the UCS report attempts, to forecast costs and plan over multi-decadal periods, is all but impossible to do with any degree of certainty.

Further, the report’s inputs to the electricity planning model are already outdated. For example, the central cost figures it uses for nuclear reactor costs are significantly lower than the costs of the two reactors currently being constructed in the state of Georgia.

Renewables are not just getting cheaper, they are also quick to construct.

Bottom line, renewable energy costs are going down, as nuclear costs are going up, along with the risks, and there is still no cost associated with storing nuclear radioactive garbage for a million years. You can bet that taxpayers will foot that bill, and not the corporations that created it.

True, but in this case they are recommending no nuclear, so AGR will take their one positive anti nuclear article after however many pro nuclear ones. It is time to build bridges and form a consensus, and this may be one of those bridges.